>But if you look at the data
>Have you considered other factors?
How do you respond?

Seriously, though, in major, societal-level studies where a million variables can come up, how the hell can you get anything consistent? How can you test something and know ahh yes, reggae music makes you thirsty. Or something equally vague? I feel like there are whole fields of "science" that are just pure vibes

If you don't follow the scientific method, then you're not doing science. Playing with weak statistical correlations to justify your paper isn't science

>>16733339
Right, but what is the scientific method for large-scale stuff? You can hardly eliminate all variables, and you can't consider every factor in something like that. Furthermore, most of these tests are probably going to be non-replicable anyway, so are they even science? (Macro scale things stilll)

>>16733347
They aren't science. If you can't conduct proper isolation testing then your results are meaningless. Poor science does more harm than good, psychology and nutrition are some of the best examples. Every week their stance on red wine and eggs changes, today they kill you and tomorrow they're miracle cures.

>>16733349
>If you can't conduct proper isolation testing then your results are meaningless.
If you can't get around the problem of induction (you can't) then the results are meaningless anyways. That te results were consistent and repeatable does not imply they will continue to be.

>>16733332 (OP)
One should study nature not society.